Roleplaying vs. simming

This came up on an internal Phoenyx list, where the committee is pondering
whether the Phoenyx' (unwritten) charter encompasses "simming."  (The game
proposal in question was a game based on the TV talk show(!) "The View."  
As Dave Barry would say, I Am Not Making This Up.)

And I thought to myself, what the heck, it's a general roleplaying topic,
and GMAST hasn't had any traffic of late.  So here, compare and contrast.  
Talk amongst yourselves.

(And no, I don't think the below-quoted author reads this group.)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri,  2 Jun 2000 20:43:45 cdt
From: Jason Knight 

My two cents:

In one camp, we have Real Roleplayers, many of whom bemoan 
the fact that their hobby is ghettoized, and never catches on with 
the mainstream population.  In another camp, we have Dedicated 
Simmers, who are generally blissfully unaware of the Roleplayers' 
existence, but who represent everything that's missing from the 
Roleplayers hobby:  they're TV-watching non-geeks, 
disproportionately female.

If I really wanted to make a fortune and revolutionize the 
roleplaying industry, I wouldn't prattle about Open Gaming Licenses 
and whatnot - Hasbro is barking up the wrong tree.  No, I'd find a 
way to repackage roleplaying games as "sims."  Be careful what 
you wish for, Real Roleplayers.  Simmers /are/ the face of 
roleplaying introduced to the masses.

-- --------------------------------------------------------------
Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen J. Cravens 
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 9:50 PM
Subject: GM: Roleplaying vs. simming


> This came up on an internal Phoenyx list, where the committee is pondering
> whether the Phoenyx' (unwritten) charter encompasses "simming."  (The game
> proposal in question was a game based on the TV talk show(!) "The View."
> As Dave Barry would say, I Am Not Making This Up.)
>
> And I thought to myself, what the heck, it's a general roleplaying topic,
> and GMAST hasn't had any traffic of late.  So here, compare and contrast.
> Talk amongst yourselves.
>
> (And no, I don't think the below-quoted author reads this group.)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri,  2 Jun 2000 20:43:45 cdt
> From: Jason Knight 
>
> My two cents:
>
> In one camp, we have Real Roleplayers, many of whom bemoan
> the fact that their hobby is ghettoized, and never catches on with
> the mainstream population.  In another camp, we have Dedicated
> Simmers, who are generally blissfully unaware of the Roleplayers'
> existence, but who represent everything that's missing from the
> Roleplayers hobby:  they're TV-watching non-geeks,
> disproportionately female.
>
> If I really wanted to make a fortune and revolutionize the
> roleplaying industry, I wouldn't prattle about Open Gaming Licenses
> and whatnot - Hasbro is barking up the wrong tree.  No, I'd find a
> way to repackage roleplaying games as "sims."  Be careful what
> you wish for, Real Roleplayers.  Simmers /are/ the face of
> roleplaying introduced to the masses.
>
> -- --------------------------------------------------------------
> Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

Oops hit send instead of the text area,

Well he does have a point that "sims" are more popular that lots of rpgs out
there. Its hard to find anyone who will play and play good. Possibly we
could get more of the people into rpgs but then we would be lying to the as
to what type of game they were playing.

Now that is what the goofed message should of said.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen J. Cravens 
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 9:50 PM
Subject: GM: Roleplaying vs. simming


> This came up on an internal Phoenyx list, where the committee is pondering
> whether the Phoenyx' (unwritten) charter encompasses "simming."  (The game
> proposal in question was a game based on the TV talk show(!) "The View."
> As Dave Barry would say, I Am Not Making This Up.)
>
> And I thought to myself, what the heck, it's a general roleplaying topic,
> and GMAST hasn't had any traffic of late.  So here, compare and contrast.
> Talk amongst yourselves.
>
> (And no, I don't think the below-quoted author reads this group.)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri,  2 Jun 2000 20:43:45 cdt
> From: Jason Knight 
>
> My two cents:
>
> In one camp, we have Real Roleplayers, many of whom bemoan
> the fact that their hobby is ghettoized, and never catches on with
> the mainstream population.  In another camp, we have Dedicated
> Simmers, who are generally blissfully unaware of the Roleplayers'
> existence, but who represent everything that's missing from the
> Roleplayers hobby:  they're TV-watching non-geeks,
> disproportionately female.
>
> If I really wanted to make a fortune and revolutionize the
> roleplaying industry, I wouldn't prattle about Open Gaming Licenses
> and whatnot - Hasbro is barking up the wrong tree.  No, I'd find a
> way to repackage roleplaying games as "sims."  Be careful what
> you wish for, Real Roleplayers.  Simmers /are/ the face of
> roleplaying introduced to the masses.
>
> -- --------------------------------------------------------------
> Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

"Karen J. Cravens" wrote:
> From: Jason Knight 
> No, I'd find a way to repackage roleplaying games as "sims."  Be 
> careful what you wish for, Real Roleplayers.  Simmers /are/ the face 
> of roleplaying introduced to the masses.

So, for those of us not up on simming, how does it differ from PBEM
and/or Diceless roleplaying?  What few sites didn't show me a 404
seemed to just be describing one or the other and calling it
simming.  Ex: http://www.borderworlds.net/simguide.htm

Steve
-- 
http://www.stevebarr.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

From: "Steve Barr" 
>
> So, for those of us not up on simming, how does it differ from PBEM
> and/or Diceless roleplaying?  What few sites didn't show me a 404
> seemed to just be describing one or the other and calling it
> simming.  Ex: http://www.borderworlds.net/simguide.htm
>
I agree, I'm curious what the difference is... is that it is designed to
more closely model something that isn't genre related?  As in, it doesn't do
horror or sf or fantasy, but rather models real life?  Rather like the
difference between basing the plot on a romance novel or a fantasy series?

To be honest, if it is teaching people to express their creativity, think,
solve puzzles, and learn to think like people other than themselves, and
teach them to think in ways that may not be a single line, that's good.
That's a lot of what I like about RP -- the things it teaches us about
ourselves, and about the people around us.

D.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Deb Atwood wrote:

DA>I agree, I'm curious what the difference is... is that it is designed to
DA>more closely model something that isn't genre related?  As in, it doesn't do
DA>horror or sf or fantasy, but rather models real life?  Rather like the
DA>difference between basing the plot on a romance novel or a fantasy series?

Well, lessee.

First of all, sims are (as far as I know) exclusively an online (IRC or
PBeM) phenomenon.

Sims tend to be based on an existing property... TV show, usually.  
Sometimes movie.  The tendency is for it to be a more mainstream TV show,
which in turn tends to make it more likely to be something other than the
usual horror/sf/fantasy trope favored by traditional roleplaying
games.  Come to that, it's likely to be something that traditional
roleplayers would say "Huh?  What are they going to do with *that*
license?" when WEG announces they've picked it up.  (Exception:  Buffy.)

Sims tend to be limited to existing characters from the property.

Sims tend to be relatively GM-less... nine times out of ten, the guy/gal
"running" the sim is the captain of the ship, main character of the show,
whatever.

Sims tend to be (probably related to the previous) more slice-of-life than
plotted.

Sims tend to have fewer NPC's, and more multi-character players, also
related to the above.  If there *is* an NPC, it's very often written by
whoever is interacting with it.

In a lot of cases, there's overlap.  Trek sims, in particular, live in the
middle ground.  The Phoenyx' 7th Order game (http://www.7thorder.org/ if
anyone's curious) crosses over... it's very slice-of-life, sometimes
borders on pure collaborative fiction, but the GMs run the overall plot
and NPC's and whatnot.  Still, it can (and has) run without intervention
for long stretches.

DA>To be honest, if it is teaching people to express their creativity, think,
DA>solve puzzles, and learn to think like people other than themselves, and
DA>teach them to think in ways that may not be a single line, that's good.
DA>That's a lot of what I like about RP -- the things it teaches us about
DA>ourselves, and about the people around us.

Express creativity, yes (though most of the sims tend to be a little more
closely circumscribed than a typical non-TV-based game - they're usually
based in the modern world, so you can't just pull elves out of your hat,
and as mentioned you're often limited to playing one of the characters
from the show).  Solving puzzles, not usually.  Learning to think like
people other than themselves... dunno about that (depends on how much
these people think like Dawson's Creek characters to begin with, I guess.  
I've never seen the thing, so I can't speak to that).  Ways that may not
be a single line... dunno about that, either, or whether that would be
more or less than in "conventional" roleplaying.

In a lot of ways, it's more a collaborative fanfic than anything else.

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net



----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

I may be a bit ignorant here, but precisely what *is* the difference
between 'roleplaying' and 'simming'?   I realise a TV talk show is
rather a rather different genre than a typical RPG, but what *is* the
difference between a Trek sim and a Trek RPG?
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Tim Hall wrote:

TH>I may be a bit ignorant here, but precisely what *is* the difference
TH>between 'roleplaying' and 'simming'?   I realise a TV talk show is
TH>rather a rather different genre than a typical RPG, but what *is* the
TH>difference between a Trek sim and a Trek RPG?

Trek, like I said, tends to be one of the crossover critters.  There's a
high geek proportion in Trek fandom, but there's also a large percentage
of fanfic authors (or wannabe fanfic authors), hence there's no real
separation of the sim/RPG camps... it's pretty much a continuous spectrum.  
The *term* "sim" gets used a lot more than RPG, although why this should
be when the perfectly obvious term should have been "holodeck," I dunno...

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

> (And no, I don't think the below-quoted author 
reads this group.) 
Do now.  Happy?

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

>  This came up on an internal Phoenyx list, where the committee is pondering
>  whether the Phoenyx' (unwritten) charter encompasses "simming."  (The game
>  proposal in question was a game based on the TV talk show(!) "The View."  
>  As Dave Barry would say, I Am Not Making This Up.)
 
I thought that was Anna Russell's line?

(If you haven't heard Anna Russell's synopsis of Wagner's Ring Cycle, you 
should.  It's funny even if you don't listen to opera, though someone 
familiar with the story will get more of the jokes.)

 
 
>  If I really wanted to make a fortune and revolutionize the 
>  roleplaying industry, I wouldn't prattle about Open Gaming Licenses 
>  and whatnot - Hasbro is barking up the wrong tree.  No, I'd find a 
>  way to repackage roleplaying games as "sims."  Be careful what 
>  you wish for, Real Roleplayers.  Simmers /are/ the face of 
>  roleplaying introduced to the masses.

I haven't done any simming, but a friend of mine has on-line.  If her 
experience is anywhere close to typical, I wouldn't want someone looking at 
simmers and thinking that's what I do.  (Let me put it this way, some of the 
things pulled in those sims would get my 7 year old nephew a very sore 
bottom.)  I'm still getting caught up on e-mail after vacation, though, have 
we put together a working definition of simming yet?

Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 LLWatts@aol.com wrote:

>I haven't done any simming, but a friend of mine has on-line.  If her 
>experience is anywhere close to typical, I wouldn't want someone looking at 
>simmers and thinking that's what I do.  (Let me put it this way, some of the 
>things pulled in those sims would get my 7 year old nephew a very sore 
>bottom.)  I'm still getting caught up on e-mail after vacation, though, have 
>we put together a working definition of simming yet?

Not exactly, although I think we're getting closer.

Yes, a lot of sims are outlets for people to express their, um, secret
fantasies about a particular TV show.  (It's got a lot in common with
fanfic in that regard.)  Which, after its own fashion, makes it guilty of
some of what conventional roleplayers get accused of (although *our*
fantasies are assumed to consist of hacking people up with swords rather
than jumping into bed with them).

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net



----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

From: "Karen J. Cravens" 
> Yes, a lot of sims are outlets for people to express their, um, secret
> fantasies about a particular TV show.  (It's got a lot in common with
> fanfic in that regard.)  Which, after its own fashion, makes it guilty of
> some of what conventional roleplayers get accused of (although *our*
> fantasies are assumed to consist of hacking people up with swords rather
> than jumping into bed with them).
>
Nah, same fantasy - adventurers are the rock stars of fantasy worlds.  Kill
a giant, get your pick of the local talent.

The roleplaying doesn't usually follow through on the second half of this
story because a fair percentage of the roleplayers are teenagers who don't
know the first thing about the opposite sex - if they did, they'd be out
with them.

I support my case with the contention that adult games spend less time
hacking and more time flirting.

I've often thought that the teen female market was wide open for a Barbi RPG
based on dating, boys and ponies.  Of course females don't need rules to
keep their imaginary worlds structured and logical, and also don't need
rules to share that imaginary world with friends and don't lose interest if
there aren't car chases or blood.  Hmm, maybe there isn't a product there
after all.

Chris Tutty

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Chris Tutty wrote:

[Amusing aside:  Chris' message tripped the spamfilters at one GMAST
member's site.  Apparently we're not allowed to say "sex" and "teenagers"
in the same message.  Or something... it wasn't specific about what
"content" bothered it.]

CT>I've often thought that the teen female market was wide open for a Barbi RPG
CT>based on dating, boys and ponies.  Of course females don't need rules to
CT>keep their imaginary worlds structured and logical, and also don't need
CT>rules to share that imaginary world with friends and don't lose interest if
CT>there aren't car chases or blood.  Hmm, maybe there isn't a product there
CT>after all.

That, I think, is why "the industry" hasn't leaped to profit from
"simming"... it's mostly rules-free.  Actually, there are a lot of rules
in many of them, but they're meta-rules:  the sim clubs often have a
massive bureaucracy that's developed around working one's way up to be a
"gamemaster":  captain of a Federation ship or whatever.

(I've occasionally wondered if the Phoenyx would benefit from some kind of
hierarchy like that, just to have someone to delegate responsibility
to.  Un/Fortunately, we seem to attract the more creative and less
bureaucratic type of gamemaster.  This is probably good.)

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

>> Yes, a lot of sims are outlets for people to express their, um, secret
>> fantasies about a particular TV show.  (It's got a lot in common with
>> fanfic in that regard.)  Which, after its own fashion, makes it guilty of
>> some of what conventional roleplayers get accused of (although *our*
>> fantasies are assumed to consist of hacking people up with swords rather
>> than jumping into bed with them).
>>
>Nah, same fantasy - adventurers are the rock stars of fantasy worlds.  Kill
>a giant, get your pick of the local talent.
>
>The roleplaying doesn't usually follow through on the second half of this
>story because a fair percentage of the roleplayers are teenagers who don't
>know the first thing about the opposite sex - if they did, they'd be out
>with them.
>
>I support my case with the contention that adult games spend less time
>hacking and more time flirting.
>
>I've often thought that the teen female market was wide open for a Barbi
RPG
>based on dating, boys and ponies.  Of course females don't need rules to
>keep their imaginary worlds structured and logical, and also don't need
>rules to share that imaginary world with friends and don't lose interest if
>there aren't car chases or blood.  Hmm, maybe there isn't a product there
>after all.


I don't think I've heard a comment that was laced with more pap than that
last one.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote:

JA>I don't think I've heard a comment that was laced with more pap than that
JA>last one.

I don't think I've heard a comment that was laced with less content than
*that* last one.  If you haven't got anything to say, don't say it, Jim.

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net



----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen J. Cravens 
To: gmast@phoenyx.net 
Date: Saturday, 10 June 2000 01:02
Subject: Re: GM: Roleplaying vs. simming


>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote:
>
>JA>I don't think I've heard a comment that was laced with more pap than
that
>JA>last one.
>
>I don't think I've heard a comment that was laced with less content than
>*that* last one.  If you haven't got anything to say, don't say it, Jim.


Then, if you didn't understand it, here it is:
It is disengenous to say that girls or boys have more or less need for rules
in a roleplaying game, or sim, or whatever. Unless this contention can be
backed up with something more than self-justifying anecdotes, then I suggest
that the opinion is nothing more than balderdash, and needs to be treated
with the contempt that generalisations so unfounded deserve.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote:

JA>Then, if you didn't understand it, here it is:
JA>It is disengenous to say that girls or boys have more or less need for rules
JA>in a roleplaying game, or sim, or whatever. Unless this contention can be
JA>backed up with something more than self-justifying anecdotes, then I suggest
JA>that the opinion is nothing more than balderdash, and needs to be treated
JA>with the contempt that generalisations so unfounded deserve.

Well, you certainly fulfill the "little boys are more aggressive"
stereotype.  Feh.

Run along, then, and when you've looked at a few sims and a few
roleplaying games and you still *really* think that the only differences
between male and female play styles (in the aggregate) can be dismissed as
"self-justifying anecdotes" you can come back and tell us about it, in a
less confrontational manner.

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

> Well, you certainly fulfill the "little boys are more aggressive"
>  stereotype.  Feh.
>  
>  Run along, then, and when you've looked at a few sims and a few
>  roleplaying games and you still *really* think that the only differences
>  between male and female play styles (in the aggregate) can be dismissed as
>  "self-justifying anecdotes" you can come back and tell us about it, in a
>  less confrontational manner.

Wait a second...are you suggesting that certain role playing styles can be 
identified as "feminine" while others as "masculine"?  Meaning that the 
feminine style tends towards simming, logic, fairness and flirtation while 
the masculine style tends toward hack-n-slash, irrationality, dishonesty and 
rules?  That's insulting and somewhat sexist, and what myself and Jim took 
exception to.  Particularly as I have, according to the generalizations that 
were made, a fairly feminine style of play.  I know and have gamed with 
plenty of guys who do and have gamed with just as many women who are prone to 
cheating, hack'n'slash and agression.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, of course, but if they're insulting 
and rude, others have the right to call them on it.

Lucifer >:} newly appointed female gamer

Lucifer >:}

--

"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n" --Milton, Paradise Lost, Bk. 1

Homepage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/index.html
Lucifer's DJ Webpage: http://members.aol.com/noctifer/private/DJ/index.html
Lucifer's Vampire Webpage: 
http://members.aol.com/noctifer01/private/VampHome/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

Noctifer@aol.com wrote:
> 

> Wait a second...are you suggesting that certain role playing styles can be
> identified as "feminine" while others as "masculine"?  Meaning that the
> feminine style tends towards simming, logic, fairness and flirtation while
> the masculine style tends toward hack-n-slash, irrationality, dishonesty and
> rules?  That's insulting and somewhat sexist, and what myself and Jim took
> exception to.  Particularly as I have, according to the generalizations that
> were made, a fairly feminine style of play.  I know and have gamed with
> plenty of guys who do and have gamed with just as many women who are prone to
> cheating, hack'n'slash and agression.

	Eh.
	Let's deconstruct this for a minute...

	"That's insulting and somewhat sexist,..."

	Who, or what, exactly is being insulted, if particular role-playing
"styles" are classified as "feminine" or as "masculine"?  {I note in
passing that "somewhat" is a gratuitous qualifier.  The respecive
identifiers are sexist, period.  If "masculine" and "feminine" have any
meaning at all, it's gender-related and I _think_ that that's what's
meant here by "sexist".)

	So, who or what identifies so strongly -- or is _obliged_ to identify
so strongly -- with either label ("masculine" or "feminine") that they
must feel personally insulted by the connections that other people make
to those labels and must feel barred from participating in those
characteristics that other people might associate with the other label? 
Is the world composed of nothing but manly men and womanly women?


	But let's take another tack for a moment:  Characteristics are
identified as masculine usually because the perception (at least) is
that a statistical majority of men will show each of those
characteristics rather than the opposite.  Likewise, feminine
characteristics.  So, observations that traditional RPG style of
roleplaying with rules that are framework oriented, etc. have a majority
male following leads to an association of that role-playing style as
masculinely characterized.  Observation that sims, with their
contrasting characteristics, have a majority female following leads to
an association of that role-playing style as femininely characterized.

	For group purposes, statistical and group analysis has some utility --
like for deciding or speculating whether a Barbie RPG has some
commercial potential.

	However, any individual who thinks that the forgoing group-related
speculation and statistical analysis applies to _any_ individual
personally, should or could be treated as a personal insult or
compliment -- nah, I can't think of a third misconception --
	such a person needs to take some time to think about the process which
children are supposed to go through in becoming adults -- the process of
ego definition, separating the self from the rest of the world.

	Nobody is just masculine; nobody is just feminine.  Masculine and
feminine are labels of convenience -- unfortunately, they're also labels
that carry lots of charged baggage for lots of people.  Lots of
characteristics can be associated with "masculine" or "feminine."  The
association is useful for some discussions:  Discussions of tendencies
and trends, of statistical likelihoods.  The association frequently does
more harm than good in other discussions, with other audiences who
perhaps don't appreciate the significant limitations on the utility of
that association.

	Most of the time, most discussions of gender differences become useless
(if they didn't start out that way) because the participants fail to
acknowledge or reckon with the limitations of the exercise.


	(Was my screed useful for a gaming discussion?  Dunno.  Maybe it could
come into play if there were a scenario in which the heroic characters
had to resolve a hostage situation involving 
fanatical terrorists and the annual meeting of the American
Statisticians Association and got into a debate and --  Nah.  That'd
really be a stretch.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

From: "Alan Lauderdale" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 2:23 PM
Subject: GM: Roleplaying vs. simming


Noctifer@aol.com wrote:

> > Wait a second...are you suggesting that certain role playing
styles can be
> > identified as "feminine" while others as "masculine"?  Meaning
that the
> > feminine style tends towards simming, logic, fairness and
flirtation while
> > the masculine style tends toward hack-n-slash, irrationality,
dishonesty and
> > rules?  That's insulting and somewhat sexist, and what myself and
Jim took
> > exception to.  Particularly as I have, according to the
generalizations that
> > were made, a fairly feminine style of play.  I know and have gamed
with
> > plenty of guys who do and have gamed with just as many women who
are prone to
> > cheating, hack'n'slash and agression.

To which Alan Lauderdale (lauderd@nyp.org) replied:

> Who, or what, exactly is being insulted, if particular role-playing
> "styles" are classified as "feminine" or as "masculine"?  {I note in
> passing that "somewhat" is a gratuitous qualifier.  The respecive
> identifiers are sexist, period.  If "masculine" and "feminine" have
any
> meaning at all, it's gender-related and I _think_ that that's what's
> meant here by "sexist".)
>
> So, who or what identifies so strongly -- or is _obliged_ to
identify
> so strongly -- with either label ("masculine" or "feminine") that
they
> must feel personally insulted by the connections that other people
make
> to those labels and must feel barred from participating in those
> characteristics that other people might associate with the other
label?
> Is the world composed of nothing but manly men and womanly women?

The problem is not the observation that some things are "masculine"
and some things are "feminine."  The problem is the implicit
assumption (in the original post, in which the "feminine" simming was
rather clearly lambasted) that "masculine" things are good and
"feminine" things are bad - or, contrariwise, that good things are
"masculine" and bad things are "feminine" -- which seems to be what's
happening here and what people are objecting to.

Further, there is nothing essential about maleness that confers
"masculinity," and nothing essential about femaleness that confers
"femininity."  Both are rather arbitrary social constructions.  And
what people are objecting to is the (again implicit) assumption that
masculine things are best fit for men, and feminine things best fit
for women - the social stigma that goes along with a male person
participating in a "feminine" activity.

Can I ask that, if we're going to continue this discussion, that we
use words like "objective" and "subjective," or "emotional" and
"rational," or "competitive" and "cooperative," rather that
"masculine" and "feminine"? It seems to me that talking about a gaming
group that (for instance) prefers objective rules but subjective
characterization and prefers cooperation between players is much more
precise than talking about a gaming group that prefers a "masculine"
or "feminine" style of play - especially if there's an implicit
valuation of whatever style is defined as "masculine."

It's not surprising that more men are "roleplayers" and more women are
"simmers" -- but I suspect that has more to do with the teenage
male-dominated culture of game stores, which are the most common way
into roleplaying (and which are frequently annoying even for men who
aren't teenagers), than it does with any essential difference between
men and women.

Charlton

--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@bowdoin.edu



----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote:
>
>JA>Then, if you didn't understand it, here it is:
>JA>It is disengenous to say that girls or boys have more or less need for
rules
>JA>in a roleplaying game, or sim, or whatever. Unless this contention can
be
>JA>backed up with something more than self-justifying anecdotes, then I
suggest
>JA>that the opinion is nothing more than balderdash, and needs to be
treated
>JA>with the contempt that generalisations so unfounded deserve.
>
>Well, you certainly fulfill the "little boys are more aggressive"
>stereotype.  Feh.
>
>Run along, then, and when you've looked at a few sims and a few
>roleplaying games and you still *really* think that the only differences
>between male and female play styles (in the aggregate) can be dismissed as
>"self-justifying anecdotes" you can come back and tell us about it, in a
>less confrontational manner.

Actually, I've been DMing for nearly 20 years. I know a lot about it
already.
If the only thing you can offer to the discussion is this degree of inanity,
then you've already lost my interest.
I have never seen that degree of gender based variation. I suggest that such
a contention is purely subjective and probably insupportable in fact.
Otherwise, name your sources.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote:

JA>I have never seen that degree of gender based variation. I suggest that such
JA>a contention is purely subjective and probably insupportable in fact.
JA>Otherwise, name your sources.

There's a whole big Internet out there... it's a sample a whole lot bigger
than your experiences.

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

>JA>I have never seen that degree of gender based variation. I suggest that
such
>JA>a contention is purely subjective and probably insupportable in fact.
>JA>Otherwise, name your sources.
>
>There's a whole big Internet out there... it's a sample a whole lot bigger
>than your experiences.


With which justification, you can then progress to say almost anything about
almost any other thing.
The question remains, can you support it in fact?


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote:

JA>With which justification, you can then progress to say almost anything about
JA>almost any other thing.
JA>The question remains, can you support it in fact?

Well, since Jason has blown my cover (by day, mild-mannered banking
software automator; by night, patron net.goddess of roleplaying), yes.  
And no, because I don't have strict numbers, just a general
finger-on-the-pulse feeling.  I could tally up the Phoenyx' games' style
and player distributions, but that would be a biased sampling (though
considerably less so than "all the games Jim Arona has run").

However, I can tell you to do this, and you can draw your own conclusions:  
go to eGroups (http://www.egroups.com/).  If you look in their categories,
you'll find (I believe, unless they've reshuffled) Games:RPGs.  Within
that category, you'll find the conventional range of games:  AD&D,
Shadowrun, et al., plus the occasional sim.  Pick a number of those at
random, and you'll find they're largely populated by males, and that they
more or less follow the rules of the game they're based on (in character
generation, if nowhere else).  Nothing unexpected there, right?

Now, from that same site, do a text search on "roleplaying."  This will
give you a sitewide selection, which picks up more sims (which tend to be
classed under the franchise they're based on).  I must confess to having
skipped over any of the many groups about sexual roleplaying, that not
being the Phoenyx' target market (no matter *what* Netmar's spam filter
says), so I didn't take a *purely* random sampling of that... if you do,
I'd be curious to know the apparent male/female participation levels.

Anyway, of the remainder, pick randomly.  Will it surprise you to find
that most of the (for example) Days of Our Lives sims are female-run and
-played?  Will you find any with character generation and conflict
resolution rules close to those in the conventional roleplaying category?  
I'd guess the answer to both is "nope," but it's up to you to decide for
yourself.

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net



----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On 9 Jun 00, at 21:40, Karen J. Cravens wrote:

> There's a whole big Internet out there... it's a sample a whole lot
> bigger than your experiences.

Have occasionally wondered why is it that you can have a 
phoenyx.net address and people will assume you're a nobody when 
you're not, but I can have a phoenyx.net address and people 
assume I speak with some sort of authority.  Understated 
statements like the above, and overstated statements like the 
below, are why.

Silver owns the Phoenyx. Unlike previous homes of this mailing 
list, the Phoenyx is a roleplaying server. A very serious one, that 
many people are startled to learn is not a business, since it is run 
like one.

That being so, Silver does market research, which she has on 
occasion shared with her gamemasters (which is all I am, albeit one 
of the most senior^Wlongtime). While as far as I know that 
research is limited to what people play online, it still assuredly 
trumps a sample limited to the experiences of a single DM.

I know my own experiences, while easily matching Mr. Arona's in 
length, do not represent a sample I'd call reliable - I game with 
people I've selected for their compatibility with my own gaming 
style. Were I to assume that my experience represented the world, 
I'd say no one sims.  Or plays in a Star Trek game. Hell, I could 
make all sort of wild claims.

Here's a wild claim, sure to gain me many fans: if I were to feel 
that in my twenty years of gamemastering, I had somehow 
slighted women who played in my games, or perhaps ought to 
have, somehow, had more women in my games, or otherwise felt 
subconscious guilt, I might also loudly mock anyone who dared 
suggest that there was any difference in play styles or desires, 
since to acknowledge such a difference would confirm my 
shortcomings.

On that note, I'll stop to give Carl a chance to moderate me.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

>Here's a wild claim, sure to gain me many fans: if I were to feel
>that in my twenty years of gamemastering, I had somehow
>slighted women who played in my games, or perhaps ought to
>have, somehow, had more women in my games, or otherwise felt
>subconscious guilt, I might also loudly mock anyone who dared
>suggest that there was any difference in play styles or desires,
>since to acknowledge such a difference would confirm my
>shortcomings.


I wonder if you are actually making that claim about me. Not that I care
overly much.
It would be wild, it might gain you fans.
I couldn't possibly know.
Or care.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote:

> I wonder if you are actually making that claim about me. Not that I care
> overly much.
> It would be wild, it might gain you fans.
> I couldn't possibly know.
> Or care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't bother telling almost 200 people about
it. 

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
Hail to the sun god, He sure is a fun god, Ra! Ra! Ra!

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On 9 Jun 00, at 23:29, Jim Arona wrote:

> I wonder if you are actually making that claim about me. Not that I
> care overly much. It would be wild, it might gain you fans. I couldn't
> possibly know. Or care.

Indeed. It is then, I suppose, not worth noting that in your message 
prior to this one, you invoked the "Some of my best friends are 
gay" type of defense.  Never mind.  Forget I mentioned it.  
Neither of us cares.

(must... keep... straight... face)

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

>JA>With which justification, you can then progress to say almost anything
about
>JA>almost any other thing.
>JA>The question remains, can you support it in fact?
>
>Well, since Jason has blown my cover (by day, mild-mannered banking
>software automator; by night, patron net.goddess of roleplaying), yes.
>And no, because I don't have strict numbers, just a general
>finger-on-the-pulse feeling.  I could tally up the Phoenyx' games' style
>and player distributions, but that would be a biased sampling (though
>considerably less so than "all the games Jim Arona has run").
>
>However, I can tell you to do this, and you can draw your own conclusions:
>go to eGroups (http://www.egroups.com/).  If you look in their categories,
>you'll find (I believe, unless they've reshuffled) Games:RPGs.  Within
>that category, you'll find the conventional range of games:  AD&D,
>Shadowrun, et al., plus the occasional sim.  Pick a number of those at
>random, and you'll find they're largely populated by males, and that they
>more or less follow the rules of the game they're based on (in character
>generation, if nowhere else).  Nothing unexpected there, right?
>
>Now, from that same site, do a text search on "roleplaying."  This will
>give you a sitewide selection, which picks up more sims (which tend to be
>classed under the franchise they're based on).  I must confess to having
>skipped over any of the many groups about sexual roleplaying, that not
>being the Phoenyx' target market (no matter *what* Netmar's spam filter
>says), so I didn't take a *purely* random sampling of that... if you do,
>I'd be curious to know the apparent male/female participation levels.
>
>Anyway, of the remainder, pick randomly.  Will it surprise you to find
>that most of the (for example) Days of Our Lives sims are female-run and
>-played?  Will you find any with character generation and conflict
>resolution rules close to those in the conventional roleplaying category?
>I'd guess the answer to both is "nope," but it's up to you to decide for
>yourself.
>
I haven't done as you suggest, but intend to. It does sound interesting, in
any case.

I do think I will find more men playing roleplaying roleplaying games like
Shadowrun, and more women playing taking part in a sim of Days of Our Lives
than men. But, then the sample is pretty biased in its own way. More men
than women are going to be interested in playing Shadowrun, because
cyberpunk has more of a male following than a female following, and soap
operas appear to be supported by audiences that are largely female.
What that indicates is that men like story telling that takes place in one
kind of environment and women like it in an another.
I don't believe that it means that men prefer a more rules structured game
than women do. I'm prepared to accept that there is a difference in play
between genders. Just that the degree of rules within them isn't a gender
based preference.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

Wow, tough crowd.  I made an offhand comment in a casual exchange.  I didn't
realise it would be analysed for accuracy (and am dismayed at the
inflammatory nature of the first few replies).  I'm going to have to watch
what I say on the way out of the room.

However, in the spirit of Jim "where are your references" Arona's demand
that all comments be accompanied with authoritative references I went
looking for research.  The references I assume Mr Arona supplied to
substantiate his contrary position seem to have been dropped by my browser -
could you re-post them Jim?

I found that it was difficult to get past the rhetoric and pop-science to
authoritative research.  I assume that Jim will provide better substance
than I, but the following two references seemed the most useful for a quick
fly-by.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/game_design/19980213/girl_games.htm
is a press release with criticism about a company releasing computer games
for girls.  While this isn't RPG there is much similarity in the design of
both content and style.  This article was interesting in that it presented
the research this company indicated was underlying it's design and then
criticised it (and the games themselves).  Also in that the games themselves
seem to be superficial sexist clap-trap.

I also discovered:

A quick search on InfoSeek for "toys" and "gender" reveals
that Justine Cassell, at MIT, is working in gender and technology and
in particular doing some research in children's choices/use of toys
with respect to gender. Go to
 ; that may then
suggest other connections.
(CT: looked interesting, but the page wouldn't load)
Also, though not exactly research, you
should see what's become a classic work, Barrie Thorne, _Gender
Play_, on children, play, and gender.


The book referenced: _Gender Play : Girls and Boys in School_ by Barrie
Thorne is mentioned by a number of different discussions on this subject but
I couldn't find a web reference to a discussion of content, just the Amazon
reviews.


What annoyed me most is that it took Jim about a dozen messages to get to
the statement he could easily have started statement with.
From: Jim
> What that indicates is that men like story telling that takes place in one
> kind of environment and women like it in an another.
> I don't believe that it means that men prefer a more rules structured game
> than women do. I'm prepared to accept that there is a difference in play
> between genders. Just that the degree of rules within them isn't a gender
> based preference.
>
This I would have accepted as a correction of my off-hand comment, and I
could have replied with "Of course, I apologise for not thinking before
posting".  To have had to sit through "pap" and "... balderdash, and needs
to be treated with the contempt..." to get to a reasoned criticism is just
unnecessary.  Maybe he had a bad day.


As to whether the remark is correct or not, my only basis was recalling my
niece's ability to construct detailed, complex stories with whatever props
where available.  The few boys I've listened to tended to establish
characters and then fight it out. This is, of course, just an observation on
those few children.  My wife, in particular, pointed out that my niece's
behaviour reminds her more of the 'only girl' story-telling she did as a
child.  This agrees with reading I've done that suggests that birth rank and
sibling balance have as much to do with behaviour as superficial boy / girl
references.

I'm doing some other thinking while restarting my campaign and this has got
me curious about different ways to encourage story involvement (Jim Arona:
while my asides regarding your references might have seemed sarcastic I'd be
honestly interested in any research you could point to in this area).

Chris Tutty

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, M. Jason Knight wrote:

> On that note, I'll stop to give Carl a chance to moderate me.

While GMAST has a listowner, it is completely unmoderated.  That was one
of the conditions on bringing it to the Phoenyx... nobody but the users
have a say on what is and isn't discussed.  It's anarchy, and whoever
shouts the loudest and longest gets their way. 

It's not my usual way of running a list, and were this any of my other
lists I'd have stopped it already... but hands-off is what I agreed to and
how it shall stay. 

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)                GMAST List Owner
Hey, you work at McDonalds, you can afford it!

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, M. Jason Knight wrote:

MJK>On that note, I'll stop to give Carl a chance to moderate me.

GMAST isn't moderated.  It's mob-rule.  Heh.

(This is where *I* back away, being careful not to get between you and the
mob, making no sudden moves...)

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net



----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

>It's not surprising that more men are "roleplayers" and more women are
>"simmers" -- but I suspect that has more to do with the teenage
>male-dominated culture of game stores, which are the most common way
>into roleplaying (and which are frequently annoying even for men who
>aren't teenagers), than it does with any essential difference between
>men and women.


This, I profoundly agree with. I DM, amongst other things, in a group of 90
or so people, about half of whom are approaching middle age, with children
starting to become interested in the pasttime. Originally, the group was
mostly male, but over the years, the group demographic has shifted so that
just under half are women.
There is nothing about rpgs that suggests to these women that it is a 'male'
endeavour, or indeed to me. The main reason seems to be that most of the
women who play rpgs never really knew much about them, and so never acquired
an interest.
Young men, on the other hand, are exposed to them more readily, because of
their interest in war or board gaming of different kinds.
And, yet, if we look at roleplaying games, then to a large extent, they have
little to do with gaming. There is no victory condition, so critical to
defining a game. Yes, you can point to a dictionary, which will define a
game as an entertainment or similar, but the thing that makes a game
distinct from other forms of entertainment, at least to my mind, is that
there is a victory condition.
Roleplaying games and sims are about taking part in a story. The player
brings the story of their character to the DM's story. The dynamic
interactions of stories are what creates a roleplaying game. Yet, there is
no victory condition. In large part, it is irrelevant whether or not the
players survive, or even overcome their opposition, assuming they even have
an opposition.
It is more important that an interesting and provoking story unfold.
To return, however, to the point. I have never found that needing firm rules
was either a male or a female thing. Some players cannot rid themselves of
those shackles, and some players can't wait to be rid of them. I have never
noticed it have anything to do with gender.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

Roleplaying vs. simming

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Charlton Wilbur wrote:

CW>The problem is not the observation that some things are "masculine"
CW>and some things are "feminine."  The problem is the implicit
CW>assumption (in the original post, in which the "feminine" simming was
CW>rather clearly lambasted) that "masculine" things are good and
CW>"feminine" things are bad - or, contrariwise, that good things are
CW>"masculine" and bad things are "feminine" -- which seems to be what's
CW>happening here and what people are objecting to.

I'm not sure simming was lambasted because of the bits that make it
feminine, though.

In fact, I'm not sure simming was lambasted, period.  Certainly simming
seems to be "feminine" (I'd say female-dominated, since we can, I hope,
agree on that), and nobody *here* likes it, but if you do the
afore-described eGroups survey, you'll find out that more people like
simming than like roleplaying, so I think "bad" is a matter of opinion.  
That we were prefer roleplaying just means that this is a roleplaying
mailing list, is all.

CW>It's not surprising that more men are "roleplayers" and more women are
CW>"simmers" -- but I suspect that has more to do with the teenage
CW>male-dominated culture of game stores, which are the most common way
CW>into roleplaying (and which are frequently annoying even for men who
CW>aren't teenagers), than it does with any essential difference between
CW>men and women.

Well, if we apply the Jim Arona Standard here, that's pap, and
contemptible, and some other stuff, on account of it doesn't mesh with my
personal experience, which is the only standard I can possibly accept.

Er.

Okay, seriously.  I think it's a chicken-and-egg thing.  Are women turned
off by the fact that game stores are male-dominated, or did they become
male-dominated because women didn't have an interest?

-- 
Karen J. Cravens  silver@phoenyx.net



----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/